You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The issue though is that the US is a very bad place to be poor, and because of the way society is organised, especially around healthcare, it is very easy to end up poor, and very difficult to stop being poor. If you don't have company subsidised healthcare, a perk that is becoming rarer, and lower inquality, you are one accident/family illness away from poverty.
I live in a socialist country that's also a liberal democracy, and like it quite a lot thanks
Wealthy Russians and Chinese don’t send their kids there for no reason
"Wealthy" is the key word there. As I said, wealthy people can have a good life in the USA, if you're not sensitive to certain things; but I don't rate the USA as a good place to be poor or even on lower middle income for all sorts of reasons. I do have a bit of insight here since I'm married to an American. Even the ones that do ok have to work a lot harder to stay there than we do here.
If you don’t have company subsidised healthcare, a perk that is becoming rarer, and lower inquality, you are one accident/family illness away from poverty.
You can still be that even if you have insurance. Your insurance cover will be limited, and it won't cover lots of things. If you get accidentally pregnant you will be on the hook for ten or fifteen grand, you will only get 2 weeks' maternity leave (unpaid). Then you have to work out how to fund childcare or give up your job whilst having incurred these costs. The system is very rotten.
I live in a socialist country that’s also a liberal democracy, and like it quite a lot thanks
If it has a capitalist economy, it's not a socialist country, it's a liberal capitalist country. Just like where I live, which I like and I think is a nicer place to live than the US. But millions upon millions of migrants think the US offers something better than their home country. That's not because they are stupid, it's because the US is actually a pretty decent place to live for most people who live there.
it’s because the US is actually a pretty decent place to live for most people who live there.
I'm not sure about most. But in any case, we know it's dreadful for a pretty large chunk of the poorest. And in my mind that makes it a badly governed country.
If it has a capitalist economy, it’s not a socialist country, it’s a liberal capitalist country
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies. There's no point in trying to categories countries like this and attempting to use it to denigrate socialist policies.
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies.
No, they aren't. Socialist policies are that the means of production should be publicly owned. Most countries have abandoned nationalization of industry. Regulating capitalism isn't socialism, that's why socialist despise liberals. Liberals believe that capitalism can be tamed and used to benefit society, socialists see capitalism as the root of all evil. If you endorse any form of capitalism, you aren't a socialist.
The US is a terrible place to live for the majority. My sister in law had a kid by accident at 25 while working at a fast food restaurant and her partner was studying. That's a one way ticket to absolute poverty that you're extremely unlikely to get out of in the US. She got 2 weeks of maternity leave and now has to fund nursery on that income. They get by because her parents are well off but for the vast majority of Americans, incomes are incredibly low, state support is almost non-existent, worker rights don't exist so you can't do things like having a kid if you're not well off without crippling your finances. Food and just about everything except gas is more expensive than it is here to make things worse.
The poverty at the bottom end is absolute. It sells a good dream, and looks good because it's not what you see as an outsider, but most people struggle to live any kind of comfortable life there.
EDIT - and, because it's a pace that doesn't have many policies that most people would associate with socialism, it's not even that good to be middle income there. You don't get anywhere near as many of the worker's rights you get here that make life bearable. Holiday is minimal (I'd be on two weeks a year). Your protections are minimal. You have to get health insurance, which is more costly per head than a nationalised system. It's not a good place to live unless you live there already and are completely blinkered to any other way of life, or are very rich.
No, they aren’t. Socialist policies are that the means of production should be publicly owned.
There are still state owned industries in countries that have free markets as well.
If you endorse any form of capitalism, you aren’t a socialist.
I honestly think that narrow of a definition is not especially helpful to the debate.
I also don't think that 'liberal democracy' means a mix of state and privately owned businesses. Liberal democracy refers to the rights of the individual, and that can still be applied even if many of the industries are state owned
I think that liberalism is the opposite of authoritarianism and is a political philosophy; socialism is the opposite of capitalism and is an economic philosophy, and the two things are on orthogonal axes. So you can be socialist and authoritarian (Soviet Russia), quite socialist and liberal (Sweden), quite capitalist and liberal (USA) etc. As I said, every country is a blend of ideas and exist somewhere in the space defined by these axes.
Consider this: we in the UK could be considered a liberal democracy since we have laws protecting individual rights. But what if we nationalised all our utilities? Would that be a socialist policy? It would certainly be an anti-capitalist one since it would remove the ability for people to make money in a chunk of the economy. So what would you call it?
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies. There’s no point in trying to categories countries like this and attempting to use it to denigrate socialist policies.
I would give up. They have gone full root of evil and I suspect a no true Scotsman is waiting round the corner.
Yes, but when you are dealing with billions of people, you can look at patterns of migration and see where people prefer to live. East Germans risked their lives to get to West Germany, but West Germans didn’t rush to move to the East. Russian and Chinese elites send their kids to school in Western Europe and the U.S., but Western elites don’t send their kids to school in Russia or China. The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.
And all criminals played Grand Theft Auto.
The trouble with that is it's likely that so did most CEO's, Drs, Engineers and Heads of State.
The "Liberal Democracy" Vs "Communist Dictatorship" comparison is far more down to the Democracy Vs Dictatorship as shown by your own example, Russia isn't communist anymore, I've no idea how socialist it is but given the inequality shown on the news I'm going top suggest it's somewhat less Socialist than our Conservative government.
For me I think the OP goes wrong in assuming that Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. To me any nationalized industry is a weak dose of "Communism", it's the state ownership of the means of production. Whereas Socialism is a financial instrument, it's private industry being free to do what it likes and then it's profits taxed to pay for government spending. And within those models there's benefits and weaknesses and questions to be asked. If you have an industry in state ownership should it be either run for maximum profit in order to fund other services, or should it be run to break even and deliver the best value service? How do you drive for that value if there is no profit motive?
As for the redistribution of wealth. Whilst the right will portray it as the government coming along and taxing you out of house and home to give them to someone on benefits. The reality is it means taxing you out of Caviar and S-Works Turbo Kenevo's to fund universal education and health care. Everyone has the same needs, that probably cost about £70k*/household annually, and that includes health, education, transport infrastructure, etc. For a lot of people (i.e. half the country) their wage isn't enough to fund that on their own. That's redistribution of wealth. It's someone earning £40k and having ~£5k to spend on luxuries paying slightly more tax so that someone on £30k is a net beneficiary of health/roads/schools/police/etc. At the extreme end it does include 'handouts' to subsidize low incomes and prevent poverty. Towards the center of the bell curve it's less about those direct benefits and simply that peoples tax paid wouldn't actually correspond to the services they use/have access to.
Don't even get me started on inheritance tax though, I've got some very unpopular opinions on that.
*i.e. 2x GDP/capita
My sister in law had a kid by accident at 25 while working at a fast food restaurant and her partner was studying.
That's quite a remarkable way to get pregnant. I'm trying to figure out the gymnastics involved. Would probably make a great Peepshow episode.
I get really upset when people try to push their ideas on me in a book, it makes me cringe, so I’m worried that’s what this will be about.
Most books I read are written with the sole intention of pushing ideas 🙂 I'm not sure this is one of them though. Yes there is discussion of politics but only from the angle that there are different ways of organising society compared to today. In fact a lot of this book talks about pre-historic or indigenous societies which are/were plutocratic or autocratic. The main idea in this book is that the established narrative as presented by books like Sapiens is too simplistic and not supported by archeological evidence. Yes we live in a statist world, where one form of government dominates all others, but limiting ourselves to considering different flavours of that statist model rather than real alternatives seems a bit odd to me.
No, they aren’t.
Thols you seem rather desperate to deny that anything in our society might represent socialist or collectivist values. I presume you don't use any public services and pay for everything privately? I'm guessing if your house catches fire you won't be calling the fire brigade on a point of principal? You need to get over it, it's really no big deal.
thols, I think it might be best if you decided the discussion is about social democracy, rather than the economic definition of socialism.
As an aside, have you ever visited a post-communist country? I've been to quite a few and while being part of the USSR clearly wasn't good for them on a macro-scale, a lot of the individuals who lived through it miss it. They miss the fact that their job was secure. They miss that their pensions were guaranteed. They miss the general security of society. While the way the USSR was run was obviously horrific, these individuals were better off under it. Once the USSR fell, they were almost immediately much worse off as their rights were eroded, their job security was gone as market forces came into play, the cost of their food (even though it was now much more readily available) and other living costs shot up and things were generally harder.
I think that liberalism is the opposite of authoritarianism and is a political philosophy; socialism is the opposite of capitalism and is an economic philosophy, and the two things are on orthogonal axes
All ideologies are on orthogonal axes. They are all unidimensional and try to describe political and economic organization by a single dimension. For socialists, it's the ownership of capital. For liberals, it's freedom. For conservatives, it's the role of tradition. For feminists, it's sex/gender. Those are all orthogonal and they intersect in strange ways - for example, one strand of feminism points to myths about matriarchal societies to basically argue for feminism from a conservative viewpoint (i.e. it's a traditional way of organizing societies.)
thols, I think it might be best if you decided the discussion is about social democracy,
Then call it that. If it's a thread on a socialist utopia but nobody actually likes socialism, then just agree that socialism sucks and liberalism is a much better way of doing things. I'm all for social democracy, I just think the lessons of history are pretty vivid that socialism was a terrible mistake.
quite capitalist and liberal (USA) etc.
Capitalist democracies (especially the US) are not liberal. What happens if you don't want to work? What if you want to live as a nomad and not own property? What if you want to go and live in another country where you weren't born? What if you want to be self-sustaining and completely separate from the state? Capitalist democracies are no different to authoritarian socialist states. They still force you to work, limit your free time and what you do with it, and force you to accept a way of living which you might not want. The only difference is in the mechanisms they adopt to curtail your freedom.
then just agree that socialism sucks and liberalism is a much better way of doing things
Aside from it isnt as all the victims of lassiez-faire liberalism found out.
A mixed economy is the right approach but getting the balance is crucial. Announcing that anything other than the purist version of one is actually the other undermines this.
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies.
No, they aren’t. Socialist policies are that the means of production should be publicly owned. Most countries have abandoned nationalization of industry.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-bush-becomes-a-soc_b_127006
They still force you to work
Nobody is forcing anyone to work, its just if you choose not to work you have to pay the consequences of your choice.
What if you want to be self-sustaining and completely separate from the state
Because your actions will have an effect on everyone else around you. it's called society & its the inevitable consequence of living on a plqnet with 7 billion other people. You have to learn to share. If you don't like it, other planets are available.
For anyone interested in this stuff in a British context, there are some good shows on BBC Sounds about the history of socialism and liberalism (and conservatism, but that's not relevant here).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b09t896q?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b06t44pc?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
The liberalism the UK experienced doesn't have much at all to do with socialism.
Which places? Specifics on what? How are we supposed to use Google to work out what you were talking about when it’s not even clear you know….?
Yes
Socialism, fascism and other similar terms are archaic 19/20th century terms that are used now by people to bash their political opponents who believe society should be organised differently. We should move past them.
The real argument is how we manage capitalism. There isn’t anything else, anywhere. There have been experiments in the past but they have withered away or been overthrown. Now there are just degrees of capitalism from progressive social democracy to crazed dictatorship.
I’m all for reigning in untrammelled capitalism that concentrates wealth in the greedy paws of the very few and brutalises society to the extent that teenagers are stabbing each other in bus stops and the old fear winter, which is the direction we’ve been taken down by the neo-liberal experiment since the 80s. There are alternatives and we should be brave and smart enough to defy the powerful to demand that we change course. That doesn’t mean people can’t start businesses, create things, make money and enjoy the trappings of ‘success’, it just means they need to contribute enough back to create a happy and healthy society for everyone, including them, to live in.
I’m available for Prime Minister from Tuesday.
One thing - Capitalism can't really exist without a source of money - that is in countries like ours issued by the Goverment using tax liablities to give the currency demand. The whole commercial banking sector is backed by the BoE.
It's a total red herring that capitalism is somehow self-generating - and wealth creating. It merely moves money from one area to another - usually to fewer and fewer people.
Once we get our head around that and the usual lack of money arguments - you can see the state can be funded to whatever is available for the government to purchase. Politics decides what that is, and a dynamic private sector can flow forwards from that.
You don't really need to talk in terms of Socialism or Capitalism - just follow the distribution of how money is created and where it needs to be spent. Then don't talk of the private sector funding the public.
We have the worst of all worlds - two political parties that lie about what needs to be done and what could be done with Government funding, and too much money going to the few.
I think we're stuck currently - an economic cul-de-sac. No one wants to really make the changes needed it appears.
Nobody is forcing anyone to work, its just if you choose not to work you have to pay the consequences of your choice.
Absolutely. That's not very liberal though is it? In order to live a decent life most of us have to give up 5 days out of 7 and we have little choice in the matter. Pretty sure if you went and suggested that to some prehistoric or indegenous people who work a couple of hours a day they'd think you were an idiot.
The real argument is how we manage capitalism. There isn’t anything else, anywhere.
Sigh, yes there is. Capitalism in its current form has only existed for a couple of hundred years or so out of the 300,000 human beings have existed. It has also done more damage to the planet in those two hundred years than in the rest of history combined, and threatens our extinction if we continue with it. So ask yourself again, is there anything else? Because if not that's quite an extreme position to take.
prehistoric or indegenous people who work a couple of hours a day
I'm sure if you decided to work for a couple of hours a day you would be easily able to replicate their lifestyle. Assuming that is that the odd 60 million people on this island didn't do the same thing & the hunter/gatherer lifestyle proved to be a bit problematic.
Assuming that is that the odd 60 million people on this island didn’t do the same thing & the hunter/gatherer lifestyle proved to be a bit problematic.
So we're all working twice as much as we need so we can populate the planet more so we can use up it's resources faster, all so a tiny few rich people can live the life of kings. Is that liberal? Or sensible or logical?
the hunter/gatherer lifestyle proved to be a bit problematic.
Possibly. Its one of the big questions (with probably a lot of answers) about why the switch happened. Especially when you look at the comparative health of the two groups. It took a long time for farming to clearly outperform hunter gathering so what were the drivers for selecting it.
The real argument is how we manage capitalism. There isn’t anything else, anywhere.
Sigh, yes there is. Capitalism in its current form has only existed for a couple of hundred years or so out of the 300,000 human beings have existed. It has also done more damage to the planet in those two hundred years than in the rest of history combined, and threatens our extinction if we continue with it. So ask yourself again, is there anything else? Because if not that’s quite an extreme position to take.
If capitalism is the exchange of money for goods and services, then I'd argue that it has existed since the Romans in one form or another, probably longer.
Your argument is about the most recent version of it and how it works. I don't disagree with your fears about this crappy system, but if you can describe a system that isn't capitalism in some form or other I'd be pleasantly surprised. There's never been a truly collective system because there's always a boss class. Welcome to the animal kingdom, you're one of them.
If capitalism is the exchange of money for goods and services
It isn't, it is a term coined by Karl Marx to describe the existing social order at the time that he made the comment. Although he tended to refer to it as the capitalist mode of production.
Edit: Okay this is STW so I am likely to get pulled up by the fact that Marx wasn't the first to use the term, although I believe he was the first to talk about the "capitalist mode of production".
But the term capitalism is being used here on this thread in the context of Marx's definition, not ancient Rome.
So we’re all working twice as much as we need so we can populate the planet more so we can use up it’s resources faster, all so a tiny few rich people can live the life of kings. Is that liberal? Or sensible or logical?
umm. We are where we are. We have 60 million people on this island. What do you propose to do. Euthanse 99% of them so that the remainder can live a blissful low tech pastoral lifestyle? Doesn't sound very socialist to me, although it might be quite utopian for the remaining few.
The socialist utopia is always just over the rainbow. To get there just use Orwell as an operating manual while ingesting a modernised version of Marx, updating oppressor/oppressed to whatever groups seems most likely to win you support. Be sure to politicise The Current Thing be that mutilating/drugging confused children or making energy unaffordable, spout hypocrisy, make everything about identity, and when you're in just raise taxes and spend. Be sure to build a wall to stop people escaping and don't forget to pass Draconian thought crime legislation and rewrite history along the lines of the Chinese revolution. Voilà, everyone's happy.
"I haven’t got a local one.. **** Tories."
You live in Wales, I don't believe the Tories have been in power there for some time.
umm. We are where we are. We have 60 million people on this island. What do you propose to do. Euthanse 99% of them so that the remainder can live a blissful low tech pastoral lifestyle?
How many of those 60 million actually do something truly necessary? How many jobs are just a bullshit way of propping up lifestyles that serve no real purpose and add to the demise of our planet? Our whole system is terribly ****ed and the vast majority of us spend our very short lives doing dumb shit that doesn’t make us happy or add any quality to our lives or those of wider society. Yet that is just the way things are and we have to accept it.
Yes I’m in a shit mood 😂
Capitalist democracies are no different to authoritarian socialist states
You could maybe construct a logical argument to that effect but it would be worthless as in reality capitalist democracies are very very different to authoritarian socialist states and it it's a bit of an insult to those who lived through some pretty terrible times to suggest otherwise.
You may be forced to work, in some degree or other, but on some level this is no different to how it has been forever. Humans have always had to go out and find food and shelter which is still work. You might be bored and frustrated with your 9-5 grind writing TPS reports or whatever you do, but you might find going out to look for berries or squirrels every single day of your life and living in the same village in the same valley just as tedious. As hunter gatherers, few people have the time to dedicate their lives to bigger issues like inventing machines to do things, discussing the meaning of life or working out how to solve the world's problems.
lifestyles that serve no real purpose
What purpose do any of us have?
You live in Wales, I don’t believe the Tories have been in power there for some time.
Wales is in the UK, the UK is run by Tories. The WG can only do so much with the budget it's given.
To enjoy life and be content. Neither of which I’m going to do when I spend most of my life working!
As hunter gatherers, few people have the time to dedicate their lives to bigger issues like inventing machines to do things, discussing the meaning of life or working out how to solve the world’s problems.
People making machines and thinking is what got us to the state we’re in now. It’s resulted in more people thinking of ways to right the wrongs made by the last lot of people thinking.
I’ve seen documentaries following small tribes of Hunter gatherers. They spend a great deal of time napping and work when they need to. Not by an arbitrary set of rules to earn money to buy things that aren’t needed in the vain hope that continuing to do so will bring fulfilment. As I said, bad mood 😂 if you spend more than five minutes thinking about most of the jobs that exist it results in a WTF are we actually doing moment. At least for me it does 😊
I blame the people who invented agriculture. You thought Boomers were bad.
"The US is a terrible place to live for the majority."
I would clearly organise a lot of things differently in the US if I were a benevolent dictator, and not many Swiss or Singaporeans are jumping the border into the US. But compared to where people are going to the US from - El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Mexico etc - working class life in the US evidently seems pretty attractive. What is going on in Central America at the moment is quite horrific, for example.
"I blame the people who invented agriculture”
I went to a gathering of hunters many thousands of years ago.
Mexico etc
a fair proportion of why their lives are so bad is down to the place they are fleeing to.
Well luckily for me I live in a liberal democracy where major utilities are either publicly owned. or publicly regulated and society and taxation are designed to provide adequate services for all strata of society and to prevent crushing levels of inequality.
That is not the same as a communist society where everything is owned by the state rather than the public.
The fact that things are horrific in Central America doesn't remove the fact that 40million people in the US live in what is defined as poverty, and that definition is pretty harsh.
How many jobs are just a bullshit way of propping up lifestyles
David Graeber wrote a book about that too.. 🙂
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/25/bullshit-jobs-a-theory-by-david-graeber-review
and the vast majority of us spend our very short lives doing dumb shit that doesn’t make us happy or add any quality to our lives or those of wider society. Yet that is just the way things are and we have to accept it.
Yep, seeing the human race should be in control of the human race it all seems a bit shit doesn't it.
I often looks at my dogs and cats and envy them. They have got it right.
They have got it right.
You are projecting. My cats spend their whole lives wandering about the same small area of land, or sitting doing nothing. I'd get bored pretty quickly with doing that my whole life and I suspect you would too.
Just to be clear I dislike the status quo greatly, but I don't think stone age culture is the answer. We need something better.
but I don’t think stone age culture is the answer.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that, but we could learn a lot of lessons. The first thing we need to do is abandon economic growth and stop measuring/calculating GDP. Then introduce a 4-day week and start talking about universal basic income.
My cats spend their whole lives wandering about the same small area of land, or sitting doing nothing. I’d get bored pretty quickly with doing that my whole life and I suspect you would too.
The point is more to do with the fact they do what they want and don't have to spend 8 hours a day doing something for someone else. Would I rather sit around at home getting everything done for me and not working all my life. Yep.
UBI is the key, but it needs masses of good social housing at controlled rent prices.
Thinking about it - housing is something that everyone needs, and yet the price is completely flexible. This is insane. Landlords or developers can charge the maximum the market can sustain and soak up everyone's spare cash.
The point is more to do with the fact they do what they want
Hmm, that's only possible because they have very simple brains and what they want is easily achievable. What you want is much less so (I'd imagine). You could maybe have an elective lobotomy?
Socialism is many things to many people.
Equity of opportunity in education and health would appear to be a good start.
We don’t have those simple starts in life sorted in the UK and on that basis everything is unfair and whilst it allows the very few to make obscene amounts of money the wider society suffers, hey ho, that’s capitalism for you.
UBI is the key
I completely agree with this and @dazh comment re: GDP and economic growth . No way am I attempting to use the quote function twice in one post though.
I’m with Kerley too. Work gets in the way of all sorts of fun stuff. I’d be a lot fitter, smarter, much better at various hobbies and get to see my kids more if I could work less. The way we live is a bit nuts tbh. If some mad bastards want to work eighty hour weeks let them. Although I sincerely doubt that anyone is productive doing so.
All seems like such a waste to me. For those motivated by work, hats off to you. For the rest of us it’s a bit shit staring longly out of the window thinking of all the fun stuff we could be doing. Even napping!
Exactly. If UBI was enough for a basic life, any extra (bikes, fine wines, C&H, trips to Chamonix etc) would be funded by the work you do. But it would be your choice, not someone else's. It would radically change society.
Even a liveable absolute minimum would be a huge change because it would give you the ability to leave a shitty job and find a new one without significant risk. That would flip the balance of power, and force employers to be better to us all.
But it would be your choice, not someone else’s. It would radically change society.
This is the point I was making previously about being forced to work. Personally as long as this is the case I don't think any of the other freedoms we enjoy amount to what I would call a 'liberal' state. Forcing people to work to avoid starvation or homelessness isn't liberal, it's sadistic and oppressive.
what I would call a ‘liberal’ state
Yeah, but not everyone shares that definition so be careful using it.
"This is the point I was making previously about being forced to work. Personally as long as this is the case I don’t think any of the other freedoms we enjoy amount to what I would call a ‘liberal’ state. Forcing people to work to avoid starvation or homelessness isn’t liberal, it’s sadistic and oppressive."
Yeah but no one is suggesting that are they, what they are suggesting is those that can contribute to society are expected to do so, those that can't for reasons other than they can't be arsed are supported. Talk about hyperbole.
It would be great if there were enough people in society who enjoyed working so that those who don't wouldn't have to but that's just unrealistic. In fact the very nature of society providing a safety net and care for the people unable to look after themselves means someone has to wipe backsides, clear up sick, deal with abuse from people suffering from mental health conditions. Whilst there are some amazing people out there who actually would do those jobs for the satisfaction of helping others there are rather few of them. Same can be said for people emptying bins in all weathers, working in retail or hospitality. There are plenty of dead end jobs which whilst the working conditions could undoubtedly be improved are still pretty unfulfilling but never the less useful or desirable for society to see done. But not at any cost, we all love a takeaway coffee but we're not going to pay £10 for it so the Barista earns a comfortable income, it's not about the person it's about where we choose to spend our money and the value we perceive we get back from it.
Maybe we nationalise coffee chains to take the profit element away but I reckon the coffee quality and desirability would go down hill rather quickly.
We’re not talking about can’t be arsed really. We’re saying that the amount of time spent at work is daft. Even more so when the job is pretty pointless. Funny you should mention coffee shops. I occasionally use them but I wouldn’t be fussed if they disappeared overnight. What do they actually bring to the world? The independent ones would probably stay around as they’re clearly run by people that care about coffee. Starbucks and Costa etc would simply cease to be.
People could still work in the care industry with UBI. Some would probably want to. The discussion on quality of life is a whole other topic. Mrs F’s great grandma is 97 and has simply had enough. She can do very little for herself and has to have people wash her. She doesn’t want that yet society as it stands forces it on her. She simply doesn’t wish to be here anymore. Yet she is forced to stay and people have to look after her. It’s ****ed up.
We’re saying that the amount of time spent at work is daft.
Yep. Why don't we all work for 3 hours a day, why is the norm 8 hours and who is that for the benefit of - it is not the 99% of people are are doing the 8 hours a day is it.
A good example of how the vast majority of people in society are not actually choosing how their society should be because a small minority of people don't want them to.
You say no-one wants to do care work. But what if it paid a grand for two half days a week on top of your UBI? I bet you'd get takers.
It is not a search, it is a discussion on what a socialist utopia would look like. Could include things like UBI, different ways of working, housing for everyone by default - sounds good doesn't it.
What do you think it would look like?
What do you think it would look like?
No point of reference, of a working socialist utopia anyway.
Plenty of failed socialist utopias to choose from.
My,we're spoiled for choice there 🙂
Molgrips I'm sure you would but I bet the care still wouldn't be great. So you filled the the roles through financial inducement, that's not socialist, it's capitalist. Going to do that with other necessary jobs people don't want to do? Where does it end? It doesn't work.
Sure we could all drop to 3 hours a day but that wouldn't work either. Our society requires a certain number of man hours worked to function, Ok close all the coffee shops and other non essential services, retailer outlets, hospitality, entertainment etc and you reduce the man hours need to make society work but we'd still be short and God would it be boring.
But people could still choose to have shops of any variety and run them for as many or as few hours as they’d like. There’d just be no need to work somewhere in order to pay the bills. It’s really a rather simple concept. Work would be a choice not a necessity. Some would choose to do lots, some a bit less, some even less and some none at all.
If you want lots of toys and a lavish lifestyle, crack on. If you want to fill your time riding your bike, spending more time with your family and watching the world go by, go for it. It would also allow people to do jobs that they actually want to do and find fulfilment I as opposed to spending most of their lives doing something just because they have to. That’s how a lot of people live and it’s soul destroying for them.
With UBI you could take time to retrain, learn new skills, all without pressure and stress whilst worrying about how the next bill gets paid. Not everyone lives like the typical STW forum member.
So how would that work then, shops opennjng for a few hours when they feel like. Probably not an issue if its art supplies, what about food retailers, pharmacies etc.?
The point is work is not a choice and it's not optional. Back in the mists of time you did everything for yourself, it wasn't work it was survival. Then people realised so people were better at some things so people started to do daily tasks for others in return for them doing stuff. And 'work' was born. Turned out if you do one job all day you're more productive and skilled at it, crazy huh.
The idea that employees can choose how little or much they work isn't a socialist utopia (I don't think it's even socialist) it's deluded. This is why capitalism evolved, at least in principle it is a fair system for rewarding contribution. Obviously in reality it's a long way from fair but despite all the doom sayers it is still very slowly getting better but won't be perfected in our lifetimes.
I like the bit where people get free food and shelter, with the food a ndshelter either magically plentifully existing, or being somehow provided at scale by hobbyist gardners and DIY'ers.
I guess this works in Star Trek where essential needs are met with a magic machine that doesnt even need buttons (earl grey, hot!). We have the 'without buttons' bit done so that's something
The other thing to consider if people choose how long the work is health. People may not realise but for most people working improves both mental and physical health. Just the interaction with others is good for mental state. On the physical side if you think we have an obesity problem now wait until people choose to work a handful of hours.
People might think the idea of not being forced to work is great but the alternative would come with massive unintended consequences because people are people.
You do realise that a lot of people are unhealthy and out of shape because they spend long hours sat down at a desk or standing in the same place performing repetitive tasks. Eating crap because they have little time left at the end of their day to prepare or cook fresh food.
The idea that capitalism is getting better or is remotely fair is also laughable. The gap between rich and poor in the US and over here is absolutely huge. As to your point that work isn’t a choice or optional. I’ll grant you that some jobs aren’t. Yet a lot exist for no particular reason or good. We’re talking an ideal here. I think the thread has somewhat moved on from socialism to what a fairer society might look like. One where people don’t have to work twelve hour shifts in a factory or warehouse to make or pack shite for minimum wage so the wealthy can have tat at what they deem to be a fair price.
Late 50s or early 60s USA looks more like a socialist utopia in terms of outcome? When the USA was demonising socialism as 'the Commies' in what, the 50s and 60s, aiui more families had one wage earner who could work at a job for life to afford 2 kids in a local school, supporting a partner at home - a home they could afford - plus a holiday once a year, a car and a few mod cons. That was sold as the American ideal yet capitalism has gradually wrung us all dry like frogs in slowly boiling water, and will keep going. Now how many parents both have to work full time to afford the basics?
Probably said before but to me it feels like Socialism was equated to Communism by the US media as a PR thing in favour of capitalism. And like most of these things no one system taken to any lengths or extreme can be the answer. There is no utopia via either system. I believe we should reward enterprise, initiative, ideas etc, for the benefit of more than the individual though.
As was said on P1, capitalist style ventures should enable socialism that benefits the full breadth and depth of a society, creating more opportunities and providing some safety net. Yes there will be 'the scroungers' etc but human nature isn't generally wired that way imo. It's the greedy hoarders taking that to selfish extremes who bother me more (and I wonder about human nature there, or if it's the mindset that gets them into that position - those who want wealth power and influence are the last people who should be granted it, etc)
The result of greed is breaking down society and capitalism enables that to happen. Currently we appear to have a system that "privatises the gains, publicises the losses" and hoovers up wealth into the top 0.1%. I don't expect society to be balanced 100% but ... well, we're being stitched up.
We'll end up with that image (I forget who raised it and where) of the one person who won the capitalist game, standing on top of their mountain of wealth looking at the view across a dead, empty world.
I believe we'd be in a better position overall if everyone owned part of the company they worked for and wealth generation was more evenly spread, less extreme. Corporation tax related to social initiatives to create a society that attracts the best people and businesses not only for bank balance wealth. That sort of socialism. Or, wages to corporate profit ratio simply rebalanced.
Less forced work. More opportunity, fewer barriers to explore the world and/or the inner world in terms of finding your place, funding what you can excel at, fluidity of access to education during working life.
Just curious. Why limit the "fluidity" of access to education to someones working life?
Ah thanks that is cleared up then
So you filled the the roles through financial inducement, that’s not socialist, it’s capitalist.
I think that any system needs some elements of capitalism and some of socialist. I don't really care what label you want to stick on it, it doesn't really matter.
Currently we appear to have a system that “privatises the gains, publicises the losses” and hoovers up wealth into the top 0.1%
Yes, we do - but I'd phrase it slightly differently. The lack of a 'system' ends up creating this outcome. It's not like its a complex system designed this way, it's the result of a less effective system. I think a lot of Tories like to talk about 'small government' as being a good thing - they don't like being told what to do, or having limits placed on their behaviour. It is of course a convenient side-effect of this approach that certain people can make lots of money. I think some people aren't quite honest with themselves that the potential to make money is why they like the small government idea, and some may not even realise it consciously. However, if they were at the other end of society they'd realise it pretty damn quickly.
Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of poor people who dream only of wealth, regardless of how it’s achieved. Probably vote conservative for this reason.
For me, a socialist utopia would encapsulate the following values:
solidarity
unity
equity
Easier said than done, though!
So to the socialists out there, what does the utopia look like?
Denmark and Finland are both examples of countries which are based around modern socialist values.
There are plenty of poor people who dream only of wealth
The reasons for that are more complex than it first appears. What people really want is control over their own lives. Money can give you that.
Denmark and Finland are both examples of countries which are based around modern socialist values.
Is zero asylum seekers a policy which fits in with modern socialist values?
I suppose you can be both socialist and racist, no?
Is zero asylum seekers a policy which fits in with modern socialist values?
Fair point. I was more focused on addressing some of the OPs original questions around social welfare.
"Down with the admin fee!
Our society requires a certain number of man hours worked to function, Ok close all the coffee shops and other non essential services, retailer outlets, hospitality, entertainment etc and you reduce the man hours need to make society work but we’d still be short and God would it be boring.
You are viewing it through the eyes of the world you are living in and seem to be limiting yourself by that.
Maybe a better question would have been what does a utopia look like as many of the socialist parts are a given if the utopia is society wide rather than personal.